Osama Saeed's blog

12 November 2006

Difference between terrorism and fundamentalism

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of MI5, placed her own role in fighting terrorism as one of a package of measures. She concluded her speech this week by saying:

That brings me on to my final point. None of this can be tackled by my
Service alone. Others have to address the causes, counter the
radicalisation, assist in the rehabilitation of those affected, and
work to protect our way of life.

(...)

My Service is dedicated to tackling the deadly manifestations of terrorism. Tackling its roots is the work of us all.

She also spoke about the role of foreign policy:

There has been much speculation about what motivates young men and
women to carry out acts of terrorism in the UK. My Service needs to
understand the motivations behind terrorism to succeed in countering
it, as far as that is possible. Al-Qaida has developed an ideology
which claims that Islam is under attack, and needs to be defended.

This
is a powerful narrative that weaves together conflicts from across the
globe, presenting the West's response to varied and complex issues,
from long-standing disputes such as Israel/Palestine and Kashmir to
more recent events as evidence of an across-the-board determination to
undermine and humiliate Islam worldwide. Afghanistan, the Balkans,
Chechnya, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir and Lebanon are regularly
cited by those who advocate terrorist violence as illustrating what
they allege is Western hostility to Islam.

The video wills of
British suicide bombers make it clear that they are motivated by
perceived worldwide and long-standing injustices against Muslims; an
extreme and minority interpretation of Islam promoted by some preachers
and people of influence; and their interpretation as anti-Muslim of UK
foreign policy, in particular the UK's involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Killing oneself and others in response is an attractive option for some citizens of this country and others around the world.

Although Dame Eliza calls it a "perceived" injustice, she did admit there is a lot of material to work with. If it's just a problem of perception, then it suggests that all that is needed is an uberspindoctor to put everyone right. Rather, some change of policy would be a rather more concrete measure.

One other very noteworthy point was this:

We also need to understand some of the differences between non-Western
and Western life-styles; and not treat people with suspicion because of
their religion, or indeed to confuse fundamentalism with terrorism.

Something that David Cameron would do well to understand. Despite quoting from the speech, the Tory leader writes in today's Sunday Times about the governement's approach to terrorism:

The final change needed is a much more rigorous approach to
combating Islamic fundamentalism. The government seems confused as to
what fundamentalism actually is. On the one hand ministers — perfectly
reasonably — express concern about women who wear the veil while
teaching. On the other hand they pay for extremist preachers of hate
such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who supports suicide bombings, to
attend conferences.

We need to embrace genuinely moderate Muslims, the majority
who love Britain and want to live in peace, while confronting the
fundamentalists. Those who distance themselves from terrorism while
seeking to radicalise young Muslims into despising the West are part of
the problem. Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir should be banned.

The Sunday Times reporter Abul Taher also seems equally confused. In yet another article from him on the "Islamist" threat, four universities have apparently been infiltrated:

Sheikh Musa Admani believes fundamentalists are bypassing campus
bans on groups with radical links by presenting themselves as “ordinary
Muslims” to fellow students or forming societies with alternative
names.

Some
students, says Admani, have been so deeply indoctrinated that they are
close to travelling to Afghanistan and Iraq to engage in jihad, or holy
war.

Admani, a Muslim chaplain at London Metropolitan University,
runs a charity that helps to rehabilitate young men who have fallen
prey to extremism. He is also an adviser on Muslim affairs to Bill
Rammell, the higher education minister.

“We are dealing with people filled with hatred,” said Admani.
“It’s hatred for the white man and the West in particular, because they
have read the works of Qutb and Maududi (Islamist ideologues followed
by Al-Qaeda) who set Muslims apart from everyone else.”

If people having read these books is an example of extremism, I can imagine Musa Admani is a busy man indeed. It's not the first time that he has been seen criticising Maulana Maududi - he also appeared in John Ware's documentary talking about ideologies from the East that are "alien to Islam in the first place".

This from a man who was educated in the Dar-ul-Uloom system in India. Glass houses and all that sir.

Comments

'Perceived.... injustices' is an interesting choice of phrase for the dame to use in relation to Muslims.

It appeared twice in the anonymously-penned Home Office 'Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005' as the motivation for Mohammad Sidique Khan's 'justifying violence through his own twisted interpretation of Islam.'

I think a lot of this fundamentalism/terrorism confusion stems from a dangerously simplistic, but very commonly held right wing view of Islam in both Britain and America.

Essentially, people tend to view 'terrorist' and 'moderate Muslim' as existing at opposite ends of a single sliding religious scale.

To sum it up, in this view, people who *really* *really* believe the literal truth of the Qu'ran are 'terrorists'. People who believe in it just, like, in some parts (like Christians who don't go to church except at Christmas), are 'moderate Muslims'.

(After all, literal belief in the Old Testament of the Bible is the main difference between fundamentalist - i.e. evangelical - Christians and most average secular Christians)

To people who think in this way (which includes I think probably a very large chunk of the British population), fundamentalists are by definition terrorists.

The message that cannot be repeated enough is that a Muslim can be as devout as they like without becoming a terrorist. They do not have to be 'moderate' in order not to be a terrorist. The manipulation of Islam to support terrorism is a completely separate issue to strength of belief in the religion.

I'm surprised that the oil connection has been monopolized by the anti-war side. I would have expected the pro-war people to talk about "the sea of oil that the Muslims hope will propel them to world conquest".

George, the reason the anti-war brigade rarely mention the oil reserves in the Muslim world is that it would mean admitting the oil is theirs. Which would naturally deligitimise the notion of "securing" oil supplies (how do you secure something which isn't yours?)
Also, it wouldn't square with that other favourite barb of theirs, that Islam is incapable of producing anything for humanity etc. How would a "Worldwide Caliphate modelled on the Taliban" as they put it, go on to conquer the West when they wouldn't allow their people to gain literacy beyond the rote recitation of the Quran?

Thanks Raashid for pointing out that extremist Islamophobic propaganda can resemble Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda which claimed that Jews were on the one hand weak and contemptible, but on the other hand plotting to take over the world...

I would recommend The Nazi Conscience for a flavour of what the Nazis did in order to push their anti-Semitic propoganda through. They actually had to work quite hard to convince the German populace to hate Jews and other 'enemies of the Volk'. One interesting point noted by Koonz, author of the book, was their reliance on "polite" and "scholarly" forms of anti-Semitism.

"A GOVERNMENT-BACKED Islamic organisation is teaching young Muslims that dying while fighting for the British armed forces is an act of martyrdom.

The British Muslim Forum (BMF) explains to young people that even if a Muslim soldier dies in combat while fighting in an Islamic country such as Afghanistan, he will still be regarded as a martyr and a hero for this country."

I don't think I need to comment on this!

Just to add that,
Tony Bush and George Blair don't like terrorism but they do like committing war crimes themselves, the cause of the much lesser crimes of terrorism.